RatioDecidendi - Binding part, bound to follow the legal principles on which a decision was made.

ObiterDicta - Other things said, not binding, rather they are persuasive.

Judicial prescedence requires detailed and accurate lawreports.

Judges able to exercise creativity despite JP constraints. In some areas JP make all the legal rules. Donoguev Stevenson - creative judgement establishing the modern law on negligence. R v R - Man can **** his wife - creative judgement.

Statutory Interpretation 1

Statutory Interpretation - Courts have less opportunity to be creative. Powers limited to explaining ambiguous working.

Sometimes rule on wording which is clear but goes against common sense and the intentions of the Act.

Aids - Internal and exteranl aids to help with interpretation. Refer to other parts of the Act, Reports or Hansard (Parliament debate) after the decision in Pepper v Hart (limited circumstances).

Controversial - Should they change the wording to arrive at what 'parliament intended' when making the Act?

Supporters of the Literal Rule like Simmonds says that it seizes the role of Parliament and so is wrong. But creative judges like Lord Denning say its their duty to fill in the gaps and look for intention.

Mischief/ Purposive - Judges willing to change the literal and clear meaning of words to arrive at parliment intention. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS changed the Abortion Acts wording from "by a registered medical practisioner" to "under the supervision of..."

4 of 8

Statutory Interpretation 2

Literal Rule - less creative. Prefer secure status quo. Justification for this it that they respect parlimentary sovereignty. Fisher V Bell shop window is not 'offering for sale' D not guilty. Parliament created the situation - Parliament should fix it.

Purposive Approach - Encouraged more recently - thus be more creative. Partly because of influence of EU law which is drafted in general terms and judges are seen to have to fill in the detail. Human Rights Act is also important and judges are allwed to consider whether an act complies with the European Convection on Human Rights.

5 of 8

Arguments Against Judicial Creativity

1. Parliamentary Supremacy - Ronald Dworkin 'policy issues left to parliament, issues which are controversial and what people vote for MP's on.

2. Not elected - Undemocratic to allow judges to make law.

3. No consultation - Parliament have huge resorses, large debates and extensive research, judges are guessing what parliament intend.

4. Reactive - Courts only make law when it arises in a case. Areas remain untouched.

5. Hasty decisions - judges under pressure that MP's are not. Have to make a decision in the case. Public policy issues risk being rushed and the law decided incorrectly

6 of 8

Arguments For Judicial Creativity

1. Practical - deal with cases immefiately, have no choise than to be creative if leagl problems arise.